Design Space - What are the biggest gaps in 4th Edition?

[Fifth Element]

I'm not sure I would want the non-combat aspects of my character that pigeonholed in general. Class already DOES pigeonhole you to some extent, but "non-combat" is a HUGE arena. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of a class for that. Not to discourage anyone, but I think I'd have to see some implementation. I kind of suspect it is one of those ideas where it sounds intriguing but when you sit down to write it up it won't really gel.

That's why it didn't really go anywhere, I think. You'd need to be broad enough to cover a wide variety of encounter types without requiring a plethora of individual powers, but not so broad that the powers would be bland and flavorless (ie, just granting bonuses in certain situations).

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm not sure I would want the non-combat aspects of my character that pigeonholed in general.

Fair point. As soon as you start to codify that non-combat realm, you really cripple the DMs capacity to hand waive such things without potentially trampling on the codified capacity of one or more of the characters. I think that hand waiving element can be a very important tool and would be the first thing compromised by such a thing.

Class already DOES pigeonhole you to some extent, but "non-combat" is a HUGE arena. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of a class for that.

I think class might be one step along the hierarchy path too far; think of it more as a broader role-equivalent feature analogous to defender, striker, controller, leader. If broadly dealt with, I think you can add these features without overtly compromising the ones already there. What these roles would be - I still only have the vaguest of notions, and I suspect the much vaunted level playing field of other parts of 4e would be sadly scattered to the wind with this.

Not to discourage anyone, but I think I'd have to see some implementation. I kind of suspect it is one of those ideas where it sounds intriguing but when you sit down to write it up it won't really gel.

I think it important to explore this "design-space", if for no other reason finding out that it won't work. I'm not so sure it is a case of if not gelling as much as to ensure that it does gel, will mean expending an "awful" amount of work and energy. To make it work (that is suitably limit the endeavour), you might have to focus it like what they have done with themes and relating them to a particular world or area. In any case, I think this is a design space worth exploring.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fair point. As soon as you start to codify that non-combat realm, you really cripple the DMs capacity to hand waive such things without potentially trampling on the codified capacity of one or more of the characters. I think that hand waiving element can be a very important tool and would be the first thing compromised by such a thing.

Right. Thinking of games which did do something along these lines there were always a couple issues. Thinking of the 'Decker' from Shadowrun for instance. Either every adventure needed to be built around the character's narrow sphere of competence to some extent or the player had nothing much to do.

The other issue, as you say, is just that overly constraining the vast array of potential situations that can happen outside of combat seems to me it would generate a very generic and rather bland system. Any attempt to do it would probably require radically different design than the combat system uses.

I think class might be one step along the hierarchy path too far; think of it more as a broader role-equivalent feature analogous to defender, striker, controller, leader. If broadly dealt with, I think you can add these features without overtly compromising the ones already there. What these roles would be - I still only have the vaguest of notions, and I suspect the much vaunted level playing field of other parts of 4e would be sadly scattered to the wind with this.

Well, maybe it wouldn't be unbalanced. It would be highly situational at best. The 'role' level of binning would certainly be the better way to look at it. Looking at the potential sorts of roles though is interesting. Things I can think of would be for instance 'Face', 'McGyver', 'Scary Guy', 'Sneak', 'Con Man', etc. The thing is, 4e really does a pretty adequate job with all of those already. It is tough for one PC to excel at more than one (maybe 2 if you dig deep into your combat effectiveness). So, what are we really left with that needs doing? It seems to me that while these 'roles' aren't codified they do already exist and are even fairly distinct.

I think it important to explore this "design-space", if for no other reason finding out that it won't work. I'm not so sure it is a case of if not gelling as much as to ensure that it does gel, will mean expending an "awful" amount of work and energy. To make it work (that is suitably limit the endeavour), you might have to focus it like what they have done with themes and relating them to a particular world or area. In any case, I think this is a design space worth exploring.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Yeah, I think there actually have been a few threads on the subject here and there. I don't recall seeing anything so far that was super compelling, but you never know!

 

[Shieldhaven]

I'm convinced that a wider variety of terrain powers, including terrain powers that are just for monsters and ones that relate to fantastic terrain (and not just dungeon dressing) are an area where a lot more design could take place. I've just completed a post about this in my blog, in fact.

4e Terrain Powers

Haven

 

[Herschel]

I think biggest thing that 4e can improve on is things to do outside of combat. Professions, Strongholds, Mercantilism, Politics, Kingdom making. Everyone wants to turn these things into Skill Challenges or Hand-Waving and get back to the combat and personally think that there is alot of fun potential in those things.

This is something I really don't want design space used on as far as rules and such as part of the main/base game. Straight skill challenges, if not properly used within the flow of the game, are awful. If you just kind of float in to and out of them, they work well. Some times though, it's isn't an actual "skill challenge" but rather a use of basic skills. On a number of things I generally let a player RP through it and only use rolls where necessary, as in outside the box or norm activities. A basic guide of economic structure would be cool though.

Example: You RP through finding a source of stone for your fortress but then you want to haggle on the price. There a Diplomacy roll might be needed if the margin is over 5% or whatever you decide.

I find often that a number of DMs aren't bad, they just lack comfort or confidence in their "grasp" of the rule structure. My answer to that is don't worry about the rule structure past what you need to. Never let the rules get in the way of your fun, only let them enhance it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm convinced that a wider variety of terrain powers, including terrain powers that are just for monsters and ones that relate to fantastic terrain (and not just dungeon dressing) are an area where a lot more design could take place. I've just completed a post about this in my blog, in fact.

4e Terrain Powers

Haven

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Tutorial: Terrain Powers)

If you haven't seen it.

I agree, things like terrain powers (and traps/hazards) are a great place to expand. It is DM-side stuff too, which means if you have a mess of 89,000 semi-obsolete redundant elements it isn't that big a deal, and they can always change or deprecate that kind of stuff arbitrarily since it doesn't impact players or existing adventures. Same goes for diseases, poisons, anything else that is basically DM-side.

 

[Shieldhaven]

@ AbdulAlhazred,

I had not seen this. Thank you for linking it. =)

Haven

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is something I really don't want design space used on as far as rules and such as part of the main/base game. Straight skill challenges, if not properly used within the flow of the game, are awful. If you just kind of float in to and out of them, they work well. Some times though, it's isn't an actual "skill challenge" but rather a use of basic skills. On a number of things I generally let a player RP through it and only use rolls where necessary, as in outside the box or norm activities. A basic guide of economic structure would be cool though.

Example: You RP through finding a source of stone for your fortress but then you want to haggle on the price. There a Diplomacy roll might be needed if the margin is over 5% or whatever you decide.

I find often that a number of DMs aren't bad, they just lack comfort or confidence in their "grasp" of the rule structure. My answer to that is don't worry about the rule structure past what you need to. Never let the rules get in the way of your fun, only let them enhance it.

Well, this kind of illustrates why I'm not fond of the notion either. See, if the PC says to me "hey, I'll go haggle for a better price on stone" I WILL make it an SC, but I'll make it an adventure hook too (well, if I didn't want to then a skill check is OK too). The SC would maybe involve tracking down the thugs that extort money from the stone masons, etc. If you have some codified system for how much the stone costs for your castle then it just becomes a barrier. The player expects it to work a certain way, the DM doesn't feel encouraged to diverge from that and things become more mechanical and accounting based vs feeling more like an adventure.

I mean I can see the desire to have some nice handy reference for some of that kind of stuff, but every time you make a rule you kill a bit more of the freeform aspect of RP. I think the 4e theory of 'rules for resolving conflict only' is wise.

 

[Shieldhaven]

I'm inclined to agree that blanket rules for noncombat things like what we're describing would be a problem. There's a right time to make Securing a Discount on Stone a part of an adventure and a challenge, and there's a time to let it be something that passes quietly. What I would like to see is a book of situations: "use this encounter if you want this range of outcomes," kind of stuff. The designer writes rules for that situation, not for Situations In General. Since I don't actually think there's much money in this, it's the kind of thing I think is perfect for bloggers and website communities to create and share around.

Another benefit of this kind of thing: it's probably for the best if players don't know exactly what they're getting if they pursue a goal like this.

Haven

 

[Herschel]

I mean I can see the desire to have some nice handy reference for some of that kind of stuff, but every time you make a rule you kill a bit more of the freeform aspect of RP. I think the 4e theory of 'rules for resolving conflict only' is wise.

Exactly my feeling.